Goodwin v. Hardy

Filed 1/30/07 Goodwin v. Hardy CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Gregory W. Alarcon and Brett Klein, Judge. Affirmed.

Shirley Goodwin, in propria persona, for Appellant.

Joseph L. Stark & Associates and Joseph L. Stark for Defendants and Respondents.

_______________

In November 2005, plaintiff Shirley Goodwin sued defendants Denise Hardy and Maria Martinez in their capacity as representatives of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, seeking injunctive relief and reimbursement of less than $25,000. Thereafter, plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order, which was ultimately granted, ex parte, by Superior Court Judge Brett Klein.

The matter was set for an Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction for January 26, 2006 before Judge Klein. At that hearing, plaintiff verbally requested the court to "reclassify" her action as "unlimited;" that motion was granted. The court then denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the matter sua sponte as a frivolous lawsuit, citing Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649. On February 15, 2006, plaintiff purported to file a third amended complaint, increasing her claimed damages to a sum in excess of $25,000.

Plaintiff's sole issue on appeal is whether, having granted her verbal request to reclassify her case from a "limited" jurisdiction case to an "unlimited" jurisdiction case, the trial court thereby lost subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter. It did not.

Judge Klein is a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. As such, he is vested with full authority to act in all cases in which the Superior Court has original jurisdiction. (See Code Civ. Proc., 403.010; Cal.Const. Art. 6, 10.)

The classification of plaintiff's original complaint as "limited" has no bearing on the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case; it simply reflects the fact that the amount in controversy was less than $25,000. (Code Civ. Proc.,  403.070.) Code of Civil Procedure section 403.070 states "(a) An action or proceeding that is reclassified shall be deemed to have been commenced at the time the complaint or petition was initially filed, not at the time of reclassification. (b) The court shall have and exercise over the reclassified action or proceeding the same authority as if the action or proceeding had been originally commenced as reclassified, all prior proceedings being saved. The court may allow or require whatever amendment of the pleadings, filing, and service of amended, additional, or supplemental pleadings, or giving of notice, or other appropriate action, as may be necessary for the proper presentation and determination of the action or proceeding as reclassified."

In short, plaintiff's assertion that Judge Klein is a "limited" jurisdiction judge without jurisdiction to entertain an "unlimited" action is simply wrong.

DISPOSITION

The dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ARMSTRONG, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.

MOSK, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.